[zbrueningsen]

I shot with a friend's K-X and her DA 50 1.8 yesterday and it was extremely awesome for the price. I would upgrade camera to at least the K-X ($200 used) and the DA 50 1.8 (140 used). The DA 50 and the DA 35 are worth every penny they cost. I've had about every 50 AF for Pentax made and the DA 50 1.8 is the 2nd best I have shot with for portraits. The DA*55 is king there, but it is about 4x the price. I would totally recommend a body upgrade and the da 50 over the DA*55 or the FA 77. While the 77 is fantastic also (my next lens), you need a body upgrade to really appreciate that. My thoughts

[robjmitchell]

I'm still obsessed with why the professional person's pics came out so great for daughter year 1 and 3,
and the discount professional I am certain I can do as well with my *ist, which I upgraded to the K200 but that is not
the point.

The professional person is now out of my price range for a single daddy. She had a Nikon, I think. D something, I think.
But the lens was about at least 4 inches across and no longer than 1.5 inches. It might have been 5 inches across
and as thin as an inch. I was not able to get that closer to it.

So, which lens do I need for birthday photos? These things are expensive enough that I just can't make a mistake.

Below is the third birthday with the super duper person, and contrasted with the discount person that used a low level
canon with a kit lens. Thanks.

The second photo is actually better lit than the first, the problem is its the wrong mood for a children's party! The coloured background is also distracting and needs to be converted to black and white, very common with green backgrounds. As has already been mentioned the right hand side should be cropped since it adds nothing, probably to square or portrait.
The moodiness of the second photo is created by the reflection of the dark tree in your daughters skin. If photographer had your daughter face the other way it would have brightened the mood instead.